# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1938_S301
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Financial Matters 301

the part of Southern California seems more pronounced. The
expressions made me feel that this commendable ambition may
be realized within the next five years.” (1937.)

The reason why the Southern California District is not closer
to its financial goal lies in the fact that Synod annually increases
the synodical apportionment while the District Mission work de-
mands an annual increase of the District budget.

“Man darf nicht klagen; man darf sich nicht aergern; man
darf sich aber wundern.” The Southern California District is kept
well informed on synodical matters. It is only natural that the
members of the District register surprise and wonder at the pecu-
liar movements of the apportionment system as it affects some,
and does not affect other, Districts.

The Southern California District is not complaining, but it is
seeking the opinion of the Hon. Synod on the question: Is it wise
and expedient, is it for the common good, local and general, that
a District becomes self-supporting when it arrives financially at
a point where the decreased synodical subsidy balances with the
increased synodical apportionment?

We advance some arguments for the affirmative. Indepen-
dence from a synodical subsidy relieves from the tension of respon-
sibility attending the subsidy, since the synodical subsidy is only
conditional, and from ‘the strain of shouldering a fixed obligation
imposed by the apportionment system, which the Southern Cali-
fornia District assumes now in all seriousness and conscientious-
ness, to be replaced by the freedom of an honest District pledge.
District independence relieves from the burden of supervision, cor-
respondence, travel, and expense. District independence eliminates
the danger of misunderstanding and the nip and tuck of adjustment.
It encourages to greater activity in local and general work rendered
with the cheerfulness of independence.

And we offer some arguments against independence. District
independence, in a case like this, means isolation and withdrawal
from general synodical work. It tends to limit the scope of interest
and service in world-wide work; for the dollar given by a District
to Synod is appropriated to other places and purposes than when
retained by, and assigned to, the District. Districts advise their
missions to accept a subsidy, though subsidy and District contri-
bution balance.

This matter is a burning question in the Southern California
District. It became so because of the annual increase of the synod-
ical apportionment and the technical condition on which the
promise of subsidy is based, so that the subsidy is unreliable while